More info

www.islandfreepress.org/PivotBlog/?e=347#body-anchor

The NPS has done their darnedest to make Hatteras Island a Plover Paradise.

Prevent contact with humans. Kill everything that even looks at a plover with a hungry gleam in its eye.

What now?

Two chicks. At what cost?

Redouble their efforts?

Like +4QuoteFlag

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh another day in paradise ...

The NPS will follow the ESA for threatened and endangered species

The ORVers will continue to make the NPS their whipping boys

The ORVers will continue to moan and groan that now they have to pay to play at CHNS and how endangered and threatened species keep them from doing what they want

The sun will continue to rise and set and life at CHNS will go on

Life is good

LikeQuoteFlag

Is there ever a time when it is decided to "throw in the towel" on a certain area as a productive breeding grounds site? I understand that one year's poor fledging rate does not automatically equal disaster. But, it's also not like these are the only PPs in the country. And the $ spent to achieve what might prove to be just as dismal seems like a lot of $.
And I'm not asking this to be snide or snarky. I'm simply curious. My brief google search of "ESA" and other appropriate word phrases told me nothing, one way or the other, but I looked quickly, and thought I might get an answer here in a timely fashion.
And dennis, just for the record, I've never complained about paying for a driving permit.

Like +2QuoteFlag

Is there ever a time when it is decided to "throw in the towel" on a certain area as a productive breeding grounds site? I understand that one year's poor fledging rate does not automatically equal disaster. But, it's also not like these are the only PPs in the country. And the $ spent to achieve what might prove to be just as dismal seems like a lot of $.
And I'm not asking this to be snide or snarky. I'm simply curious. My brief google search of "ESA" and other appropriate word phrases told me nothing, one way or the other, but I looked quickly, and thought I might get an answer here in a timely fashion.
And dennis, just for the record, I've never complained about paying for a driving permit.

Throw in the towel? As long as threatened and endangered species decide that CHNS is part of their breeding grounds the NPS by law is required to conduct a management plan for their survival. The towel can be thrown in should a species become extinct.

I supposed the same question of throwing in the towel can be addressed to the ORVers. The ORV management plan required by law is not going away. The fees for pay to play will not go away and measures taken by the NPS for protection of threatened and endangered species will not go away.

Part of the ESA sez:

"Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat"

Like it or not, CHNS is their "critical habitat"

LikeQuoteFlag

It must be a she/her and not a his/him because I'm a she/her and I would NEVER call you that. I'm very sweet and would not use that kind of language.
(The only thing I would say is "brain fried" and that's actually a medical term.) But I really don't like the way you like the birds better than people. But I won't get into any arguements with you about it.

I "like the birds better than people"? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee don't let my 6 teriffic Grandchildren know that OK.

Well as for a comparison, birds and people will both crap on you, but for different reasons. yes?

LikeQuoteFlag

Click to follow link...

"Not only do coastal development and recreation destroy beach habitat directly, but local shore development also leads to stray food that increases the number of predators, like foxes, raccoons and skunks. Unrestricted off-road vehicles, pedestrians and pets are often responsible for exposing nesting chicks and even crushing nests."

Seems like the thing to do is start by bulldozing the 'most' developed places first. It's been a couple years since I've been there - but I had not noticed that HI would be the logical starting point.

Like +1QuoteFlag

The CHNSRA plan was not dictated by the ESA, it was developed by the CHNSRR, likely with the aid of the unholy trinity. Everyone is bound by the ESA. Look at the plans for Pea Island, Cape Lookout, Assateague, etc. not even close. Heck, even Marco Island is required to comply with the law.....

www.marcosun.com/pipingplover.htm

Like +1QuoteFlag

Is there ever a time when it is decided to "throw in the towel" on a certain area as a productive breeding grounds site? I understand that one year's poor fledging rate does not automatically equal disaster. But, it's also not like these are the only PPs in the country. And the $ spent to achieve what might prove to be just as dismal seems like a lot of $.
And I'm not asking this to be snide or snarky. I'm simply curious. My brief google search of "ESA" and other appropriate word phrases told me nothing, one way or the other, but I looked quickly, and thought I might get an answer here in a timely fashion.
And dennis, just for the record, I've never complained about paying for a driving permit.

Throw in the towel? As long as threatened and endangered species decide that CHNS is part of their breeding grounds the NPS by law is required to conduct a management plan for their survival. The towel can be thrown in should a species become extinct.



I supposed the same question of throwing in the towel can be addressed to the ORVers. The ORV management plan required by law is not going away. The fees for pay to play will not go away and measures taken by the NPS for protection of threatened and endangered species will not go away.



Part of the ESA sez:

"Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat"

Like it or not, CHNS is their "critical habitat"

Okay, so as long as the birds choose to "try" there, it is considered critical habitat and ESA rules apply, correct?
So it's never not considered critical habitat? Hypothetically speaking, if no PPS nested there for say, the next ten yrs, would it still be critical habitat?
And because I'm on the subject, what # (population) has to be reached for PPs to be delisted?

LikeQuoteFlag

The CHNSRA plan was not dictated by the ESA, it was developed by the CHNSRR, likely with the aid of the unholy trinity. Everyone is bound by the ESA. Look at the plans for Pea Island, Cape Lookout, Assateague, etc. not even close. Heck, even Marco Island is required to comply with the law.....

www.marcosun.com/pipingplover.htm

You know better, but want to slant stuff for your agenda (that being ORV use) Different management styles occur and to say that CHNS must be managed following the ESA exactly as other National Seashores or National Wildlife Refuges is silly. The NPS at CHNS follow the protocals of the NCWRC for nesting shorebirds and sea turtles.

Sure let's look at the management plans of CHNS vs PINWR. Pea Island does not allow any public ORV use EVER does it? Yet CHNS does allow permitted ORV use year round, but closes certain areas for SEASONAL nesting of threatened and endangered shore birds and sea turtles.

Why sure the management plan was formulated by the NPS with input from environmental groups such as the DOW and AS as well as groups as NCBBA and OBPA wasn't it? Sorry (not really) ya all did not get all that you wanted, but then again just who did?

LikeQuoteFlag

Is there ever a time when it is decided to "throw in the towel" on a certain area as a productive breeding grounds site? I understand that one year's poor fledging rate does not automatically equal disaster. But, it's also not like these are the only PPs in the country. And the $ spent to achieve what might prove to be just as dismal seems like a lot of $.
And I'm not asking this to be snide or snarky. I'm simply curious. My brief google search of "ESA" and other appropriate word phrases told me nothing, one way or the other, but I looked quickly, and thought I might get an answer here in a timely fashion.
And dennis, just for the record, I've never complained about paying for a driving permit.

Throw in the towel? As long as threatened and endangered species decide that CHNS is part of their breeding grounds the NPS by law is required to conduct a management plan for their survival. The towel can be thrown in should a species become extinct.



I supposed the same question of throwing in the towel can be addressed to the ORVers. The ORV management plan required by law is not going away. The fees for pay to play will not go away and measures taken by the NPS for protection of threatened and endangered species will not go away.



Part of the ESA sez:

"Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat"

Like it or not, CHNS is their "critical habitat"

Okay, so as long as the birds choose to "try" there, it is considered critical habitat and ESA rules apply, correct?
So it's never not considered critical habitat? Hypothetically speaking, if no PPS nested there for say, the next ten yrs, would it still be critical habitat?
And because I'm on the subject, what # (population) has to be reached for PPs to be delisted?

Click to follow link...

LikeQuoteFlag

Didn't senate bill 486 Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore pass (bill link below)

6 paragraphs from the bottom of this state that restrictions and buffers can not be more so for the same species than those on any other national seashores , I may be wrong but I think the PP and turtle buffers are more than at least one other national seashore.

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRP...

LikeQuoteFlag

Didn't senate bill 486 Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore pass (bill link below)

6 paragraphs from the bottom of this state that restrictions and buffers can not be more so for the same species than those on any other national seashores , I may be wrong but I think the PP and turtle buffers are more than at least one other national seashore.

Click to follow link...

LikeQuoteFlag

NPS opted for larger bird buffers then recommended by NCWRC so I think they are following "some" protocol of that commission.

LikeQuoteFlag

NPS opted for larger bird buffers then recommended by NCWRC so I think they are following "some" protocol of that commission.

Please advise me the "recommented" buffer size set by NCWRC.

I believe that the NPS at CHNS sets buffer sizes taking into consideration the area of critical habitat in relation to number of shorebirds and the proximity of human intervention, therefore the size of the enclosure will vary considerably.

I believe FWS at PINWR following that same reasoning.

The size of the enclosure for sea turtles can and does vary as to size of that area.

Note that the sizes of marked off area monitored by NCWRC/NEST, FWS/PINWR and NPS/CHNS vary.

Currently there are 18 confirmed sea turtle nests monitored by NCWRC personnel and NEST volunteers and fortunately there are personnel/volunteers that can review the situation of the nest daily. During hatching time the nests can be monitored in the a.m. and approximately 6-12 midnight by NEST volunteers.

Currently there are 28 (there are approx 4 weeks left for sea turtle nesting season) confirmed sea turtle nests monitored by FWS at PINWR and fortunately they can be monitored on a daily basis by FWS personnel and FWS volunteers. During hatching time, the 28 nests can be monitored in the a.m. and during hours that are approximately one hour before sunset until midnight.

Currently there are 256 confirmed sea turtle nests at CHNS and to think that these sea turtle nests can be monitored by NPS personnel and NPS volunteers as closely as the nests on the Northern beaches and Pea Island is not practical, therefore sizes of enclosures of the sea turtle nests may tend to be placed differently.

There is a strong possibility that the area of closures for nesting shorebirds and sea turtles may be reduced at an additional cost of NPS manpower and resources to enable ORV users to achieve their wants.

If anyone bothers to read the link below it will explain how the NPS may possibly implement that.

Click to follow link...

LikeQuoteFlag

Please reference the standards as set by the ESA.

What are the standards for protecting turtle nests?

LikeQuoteFlag

Please reference the standards as set by the ESA.

What are the standards for protecting turtle nests?

Why ask a question you already know the answer to or can easily find the answer to?

LikeQuoteFlag

Because they don't exist. Each jurisdiction sets their own. For turtles it ranges from none to shut the beach down.

Plover protection ranges from draconian at CHNSRA, to the coffee can relocation method at Marco.

Can you say that things are successful at CHNSRA? What's left to do? Shut the island down? Who will be left to kill predators?

Could Federal dollars be better spent at another location where the Plovers actually reproduce? How about CALO, with minimum beach traffic? How about the Virginia barrier islands, owned by the nature conservancy, with no beach traffic? Why beat a dead horse?

If they disappear, do you keep the restrictions in place for 10 years in the hope that they will return? Do they still have nesting areas set aside for passenger pigeons in the Midwest in the hope that a nesting pair survives somewhere? Every year there are headlines that a species thought extinct for 100 years has been found.

Like +7QuoteFlag

Please reference the standards as set by the ESA.

What are the standards for protecting turtle nests?

Why ask a question you already know the answer to or can easily find the answer to?

Yet people still exceed the speed limit on 64. Some have been seen not properly wearing their seat belts.......

Like +5QuoteFlag

Oh man!!!! I spent all morning looking for turtle guidelines in the ESA. Not really, because apparently Dennis, a turtle authority, is the only one thinking that "they are so easy to find." Finding things that don't exist can prove to be a real beotche!
I actually spent the morning working on my pole barn and made the scientific observation that once the temperature passes 90 degrees F old guys should not be trying to climb up and down ladders. Perhaps a cold adult beverage will return me to good stead!

Like +7QuoteFlag

Looks like the loggerhead turtle could be delisted this year. That will allow the NPS to use smaller closures and less restrictions.

Like +2QuoteFlag